Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Oct 2008

Vol. 191 No. 9

Order of Business.

The Order of Business for today and tomorrow is No. 1, motion re the US agreements on extradition and mutual legal assistance; No. 2, motion re recognition and supervision of suspended sentences; No. 3, motion re European Police Office (Europol) back from Committee; No. 4, statements on scrutiny report on EU climate energy package. It is proposed to take Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together and without debate at the conclusion of the Order of Business. No. 4 will be taken at the conclusion of Nos. 1 to 3 and will conclude not later than 1.30 p.m. Spokespersons may speak for ten minutes and other Senators for seven minutes. Senators may share time by agreement of the House. The Minister will be called upon ten minutes before the end of the debate for concluding comments and to take questions from leaders and spokespersons.

The Seanad shall sit tomorrow, Friday 17 October, at 10.30 a.m. and there will be no Order of Business. The business to be transacted shall be a motion re the regulations to be made under the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008. Spokespersons may speak for 12 minutes and all other Senators for seven minutes. Senators may share time, by agreement of the House.

Will the Leader clarify the arrangements for tomorrow? It was my understanding that the Minister would come to the Seanad at 11.30 a.m., when he had spoken in the Dáil. I also understand there will be a question and answer session in the Dáil. Will the Minister take questions on the guarantee in this House tomorrow? There are many questions which Senators would like to put to him. Can the Leader clarify this matter at this point? Will the Minister attend the debate in this House at any stage tomorrow? I would like the Minister to attend this House and take questions at some stage of the debate.

Can the Leader answer Senator Fitzgerald's question now, before other Senators comment?

The Leader will reply to questions raised on the Order of Business.

I am aware of that. I respect your ruling, a Chathaoirligh. However, Senators will not be able to question the Leader following his reply. The Order of Business could be amended if the Leader wished.

The Leader has outlined the Order of Business to the House. He will reply later to questions raised on the Order of Business. We will see what takes place at that point.

There is confusion as to whether or not the Minister will attend tomorrow's debate. Yesterday, Members on this side of the House were told he would attend. I expect him to do so. I ask the Leader to respond to that point at the conclusion of the Order of Business.

We are used to confusion from the Government. Confusion surrounded the bank guarantee, third level fees, stamp duty and e-voting machines. We now see it in the bank guarantee scheme regarding the role of directors. There is a lack of clarity about their role. More confusion emerged yesterday. Every Fianna Fáil Deputy stood up and applauded the budget on Tuesday, yet it removes the right to a medical card to an elderly person, which could cost him or her up to €2,000 a year. Many elderly people were on radio yesterday and many called our offices because they are concerned and anxious about the additional cost and whether they will have to make a decision between paying for physiotherapy or medicines and paying for fuel. Many of them are afraid they will have to make such decisions having planned as they thought for their retirement and feeling secure about their medicines and so on.

Fianna Fáil bought the 2002 election with that decision, and in harsher economic times the medical card is being taken away from people who face significant uncertainty and concern. Age Action Ireland has had to call a public meeting to explain what is going on. There is confusion among Ministers. Different rates are quoted on the HSE website and by Ministers for the means test. We have become used to confusion from the Government on many issues but a line must be drawn when it causes upset and stress for elderly people at their most vulnerable.

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to ask the Minister for Health and Children to come to the House to explain the means test, how it will apply to elderly people and how their savings would be affected. I heard a woman on radio yesterday who said she could have spent her savings on a property abroad or in many other ways but she put her money away as a fall-back for when she was older. What will happen to her savings? What will be taken into account? There is complete confusion, which was not helped by the Minister for Finance's comments on radio earlier. He is also confused. Does anyone in Government know the criteria? Can anyone allay the fear and confusion and come into the House and explain the rules that will govern the medical card scheme when thousands of elderly people reapply in January, given their sense of certainty has been taken away? Could the Minister for Health and Children be brought to the House to bring clarity about what will happen? Does she know what is happening? Will she come to the House to answer these questions, which are upsetting many people around the country?

I second the amendment. I would like a commitment from the Leader that there will be questions and answers tomorrow. I agree with the points raised by Senator Fitzgerald. During a discussion two weeks ago on related matters, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance took questions from Members and it is difficult to go along with this change without debate. Like Senator Fitzgerald, I understood a question and answer session would take place. If the Government is afraid of that, it sends out a bad message.

The issues raised about the budget are absolutely right. I appeal to my Government colleagues. We recognise the practicalities of politics whereby they must be loyal but they should not allow the spin doctors to take over. This is a classic case of changing the words to mean something else. There is a clear difference and let them not try to convince us that a horse chestnut is the same as a chestnut horse, to use that adage. One has a head, tail and whinnies and the other does not. I ask Government Members to examine this issue. There is great anger, which will come back to haunt us.

On the one hand, people refer to the perfect decisions in the budget. The cutbacks are bruising and they will hurt people. It is like a person at the guillotine. There is a perfect head and a perfect body but there is an absolute disconnect between them. The budget does not hang together and when the grey brigades of the over 70s together with the platoons of parents outraged at the school situation and the battalions on the minimum wage flanked by Joe Duffy's private army emerge, the Government will be overwhelmed. This will not work.

It is reported the deal being brought forward tomorrow will allow the banks to select the people who are supposed to look after the public interest. That is an absolute abrogation of responsibility left, right and centre. We are walking into difficulties. Let us deal with it and talk honestly about it. The views of both Government and Opposition Members were the same when we discussed the banking crisis two weeks ago and they should not differ tomorrow.

I reiterate that we want the Minister for Finance in the House tomorrow. He was kind enough to attend the all-night debate a few weeks ago and it is only fair that he comes to the House tomorrow to discuss the scheme. Having spoken to my colleagues, we are happy to do our bit and be in the House until whatever time it takes tomorrow night and come back Saturday, if needed, but we need to see the Minister in the House. We do not want to be fobbed off with a junior Minister.

An international conference on world hunger takes place today, which will be attended by Kofi Annan, former President, Mary Robinson, Jeffrey Sachs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Power. I wish the conference well in its deliberations. It is important to recognise that while we are experiencing hardship, many millions of people throughout the world can only dream about the lifestyles we have. That is one reason I am disappointed by the cutbacks in the foreign aid budget for 2009 but I recognise Ireland is still on target to meet the 0.7% of GDP commitment, which is welcome. It is important to obtain value for the money spent. I am concerned that Vietnam, one of our nine programme countries, has jailed a journalist, Nguyen Viet Chien, for two years for investigating corruption. Ireland gives Vietnam €20 million in foreign aid. He was investigating a Government agency that distributes foreign aid and, therefore, it is vital clarification is sought from the Vietnamese Government about what is going on. We are investing in foreign aid and we need to make sure corruption is not associated with its distribution.

Next week the new musical, Jekyll and Hyde, will open in the National Concert Hall. I am sure it is fully staffed but if an understudy is needed, perhaps the show's producers could talk to the Minister for Finance because he is excelling in the role. During his Budget Statement on Tuesday, he said he would abolish universal coverage for medical cards for the over 70s. Yesterday he implied he was willing to consider examining the decision again if there were anomalies. Earlier on radio, he said he would stick to his original decision. I attended a cross party meeting earlier where this issue was discussed. None of us knew the full details of how the scheme would work and confusion abounded. If we do not understand, one can only imagine what it is like for people in their 70s trying to get their heads around how they will be affected by this proposal. It is clearly ridiculous. It will cost more in administration and excessive charges than the Government will reap from the scheme. Will the Government think again? The people affected built the country and they scrimped and saved for years to feed their families and to put them through school and college. Let us drop this idea.

We will have opportunities during the debates on the Social Welfare and Finance Bills to go into the detail of the budget. If the Leader can arrange for the Minister for Health and Children to come into the House in the near future, it may help.

A number of Senators referred to confusion, some of which has been caused by misleading statements.

By whom? By the Government?

On a point of order, Senator Boyle is replying to the Order of Business. That is out of order.

That is not a point of order. He is not replying to the Order of Business.

I am explaining why a debate on the budget might be useful.

We have not heard from the Green Party.

Earlier, I heard on radio that if the Government is to effect €100 million in savings from the Estimates, it will be paid by pensioners. This cost will be borne by the members of the Irish Medical Organisation, who receive four times as much for treating patients under the medical card scheme for the over 70s as they do under the normal scheme. That is where the money will be saved.

That is where it is needed.

I heard today that people on State pensions will not be entitled to——

The Government negotiated it.

Senator Boyle without interruption.

Fine Gael's health spokesperson negotiated it on behalf of the IMO.

Through the Chair and no interruptions.

The Senator should take responsibility.

He cannot have it both ways. He should take responsibility for once in his life. He is for nothing and against everything. It is typical of the Green Party.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

Senators should understand that it is questions to the Leader on the Order of Business.

I hope the Leader will arrange a debate on this matter to clarify that people on State pensions with the medical card will continue to hold the card. The only certainty is that those on incomes of more than €650 per week will not have any cover by way of the medical card, the doctor only card or €400 per week. If Members of the Opposition would like to justify why people on that income level should be subsidised——

What about contributory pensions?

The Senator should talk to the Minister.

——I would like to hear it.

The Minister's figures are different from those of the Senator. Who should we believe?

They are radically different.

In terms of who goes——

The Senator should read the HSE's website.

Senator Buttimer will have his opportunity to speak. He has indicated his wish to contribute to the Order of Business. I will afford him that opportunity, but I do not want people interrupting others.

Senator Boyle is wrong.

Senator Buttimer is entitled to have his say to the Leader.

I will reiterate the call for clarity because confusion exists. Perhaps the budget has not been well handled, but much of the confusion has been implanted by misleading statements by those trying to make political capital out of the matter.

Senator Boyle knows that is not true.

The Senator has changed his tune from when he was in opposition. He should explain himself.

What about the guidelines?

What about the health levy?

What about Deputy Reilly?

The IMO was four times the level.

The Senator should be ashamed of himself.

We are on the Order of Business.

What about the Senator's party?

It has abandoned its principles for power.

If Senators want to chat in the room outside, they should do so.

The Government negotiated the deal before the 2002 election.

Senator Coghlan without interruption.

We debated this important matter when we passed a Bill. Confusion seems to be reigning supreme. There are important issues at stake and, given the number of serious reservations, the Leader must allow a proper debate. In fairness to him, he does not want to mislead the House.

During a question and answer session, the Minister's presence would be necessary. If he is in the Lower House at 10.30 a.m., he cannot be here. Will the Leader comment in this regard?

Concerning serious reservations, there is the question of public interest appointments. My party agreed to allow the Minister to make the appointments. It is important that the Minister makes the appointments in the public interest, but such is not the provision in this scheme. For this reason, we require a question and answer session with the Minister. I say this with the utmost respect to the Senators opposite, many of whom would agree with me. It seems the banks will make the appointments from a list supplied by the Minister. Are we to risk further cosy relationships, which had a part to play in destroying confidence?

Regarding risk assessment committees, the people who the Minister is——

To the Leader, please. People are drifting.

I am asking the Leader about something. Will the Leader confirm whether those people will be only observers? The €1 billion guarantee will cover the entire period of the scheme instead of being an amount per annum.

There are serious reservations and questions that must be teased out with the Minister. It was the Leader's intention for the Minister to be in attendance. Will the Leader comment? We cannot be expected to agree the Order of Business without knowing the details. For this reason, I believed the Leader would have taken the opportunity to amend the Order of Business to allow our comments. We will not know until the Leader's response and I do not know what we will do afterwards if there is a difference between us. It seems that will be the case.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, made a definitive statement on the over 70s——

Questions to the Leader.

I will put a question to the Leader regarding the over 70s medical card, which was first issued some years ago. The Minister stated that, if there are anomalies in the scheme, he is prepared to consider the matter. It is for the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, to do so. Will the Leader invite the Minister to the House next week to debate this issue in greater detail?

I will make a straightforward suggestion. As a former member of a health board, it would be simpler if all new applicants under 70 years of age applied in the normal manner from budget day on. There is a strong case for those with the cards to retain them because they planned ahead.

As Government Members, it is our job to table reasonable suggestions. The cost is not too prohibitive. In fact, the cost of reassessment will be significant. There is too much assessment already as far as the HSE is concerned.

In many instances, more money is spent on assessing a medical card than the cost of the card itself. This morning, I contacted the HSE. It is working on the basis of the 2006 guidelines for medical cards, as no new guidelines have been issued in the past two days. There is confusion. As the Minister stated, let any anomalies be clarified. Naturally, I will vote with the Government.

Of course the Senator will.

We did not think he would do anything else. He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Senator Boyle made a fair point that the then head of the IMO was not shy in negotiating a golden——

The Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government negotiated this scheme.

——medical card.

We are not having Second Stage speeches.

The Senator's Government negotiated the terms of the scheme.

I am trying to make a case to the Leader.

It has nothing to do with the IMO.

Senator Leyden was the same yesterday.

No interruptions, please.

Let the facts come out. I am asking the Leader——

The Government is taxing the elderly. Does that make the Senator happy?

I am putting a reasonable point.

If Senator Buttimer continues to interrupt, I will ask him to leave the House. I regret that I must tell him this. I ask that Senator Leyden conclude on the Order of Business.

I accept that, but just in case someone misrepresents what I am saying, I will reiterate that my proposal is reasonable. If one gives people a commitment, people will plan ahead on that basis. Those who will turn 70 years of age should apply in the normal fashion. This is my suggested compromise.

The Opposition is not making an issue of the 1% levy, which it introduced in 1983 when Alan Dukes was the Minister for Finance.

On today's Order of Business.

I want to make a point.

Senator Leyden is trying to cause confusion and trouble in the Chamber, but I had hoped the Chamber was above such.

Am I upsetting people?

It is questions to the Leader on the Order of Business. If the Senator wants to give a lecture on politics, he should give it elsewhere.

Thank you, but I thought this was where I should give it.

No, the Senator will not give it here.

There is an exit tax of €10. There should be a re-entry tax of a few thousand euro for those who do not pay taxes in this country.

It is interesting to hear Members on the other side being so critical of the budget. It confirms Senator Fitzgerald's comments on the reigning confusion. The more that Government spokespersons speaking on radio concede that there are anomalies and the more that Senator Boyle and others state that the budget may not have been well handled, the more confusion and anger there will be about its effects on the vulnerable, the elderly and those on low incomes.

It is evident that the budget has been poorly handled. There is a lack of clarity on all sorts of measures. Why are the figures on funding for arts institutions on the Department of Finance's website different from those outlined in the document given to us? This is a small example of the types of anomaly in the budget.

Why was a radical approach not taken to carbon tax, particularly given the inclusion of the Green Party in the Government? A Green Party Minister more than hinted at the introduction of a carbon tax next year, but the Minister for Finance did not commit to it in the budget. He only hinted at its introduction. This could have raised revenue on more radical and imaginative basis yet it has not been done. There is a question of why it has not been done now.

As we debate increased rates of carbon emissions and the poor record of Ireland in meeting its Kyoto target, it is important to note that the carbon budget has been criticised by Friends of the Earth as too patchy, piecemeal and slow. I ask the Leader why a stronger carbon budget was not introduced in this year of all years when people are willing to make sacrifices to meet environmental targets.

I support Senator Fitzgerald's call for the Minister for Health and Children to answer questions about the medical card scheme, which has not been thought through and lacks clarity. I do not often agree with Senator Leyden but he is right. It seems completely wrong to remove medical cards from people who have been given them and who have made plans on the basis of being granted medical cards by this Government in a previous term of office. It is extraordinary that they are proposing to take them away and introduce an unclear form of means testing. We have seen great injustice in means testing in the past and will see it in the future.

I reiterate my invitation to Members and colleagues to the seminar on youth justice. It has been somewhat overtaken by events but is due to be held at 11.30 a.m. in the audio visual room and will be addressed by the Irish Penal Reform Trust.

I refer to the medical card scheme for over 70s and support the call for clarification, regardless of whether we have a debate today or later. Politics is being played with this issue. Those who are missing out are vulnerable people who need to know the circumstances. The way politics is being played serves only to put fear into older people who are vulnerable. It galls me to listen to Fine Gael refer to this as an unfair measure. It must embarrass the party to its core that the party's health spokesperson negotiated the deal to get four times the amount for the doctors.

The Government negotiated it. The Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Government negotiated it.

What about Tom Parlon?

Senator O'Malley on the Order of Business.

This was a measure to give vulnerable patients——

The Government negotiated it.

——who need the limited resources of this State and to give it to them directly, and provide medical services to them, not to line the pockets of the doctors. It is a disgrace to listen to Fine Gael on this issue. Means testing is the fairest means by which the limited resources of this country can be applied. It is galling to hear——

It is galling to listen to Senator O'Malley, when she negotiated the deal in Government.

——-Fine Gael and Labour on this issue. Vulnerable people need to be served and any universal measure does not target resources where they should be applied.

Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats negotiated this deal and used the taxpayers' money to do it. Why does Senator O'Malley not admit it?

The point is made. We had a three hour debate on the budget yesterday. Senators were entitled to make those points and the Minister of State replied at the end of the debate.

With the medical cards, the quangos and the income levy, Members on the Government side of the House are getting very excited.

Hypocrisy is hard to listen to.

They are so self-congratulating on the strong measures taken but they are measures taken by the Government to correct mistakes of the Government. The Government provided free medical cards for over 70s.

Negotiated by the Fine Gael spokesperson.

The Government created the quangos it is now trying to amalgamate and the Government reduced taxes but is now imposing the income levy on gross level. The Government is correcting its mistakes, the Leader might agree with me on that.

Whether speaking about the budget, the world financial meltdown or the economic recession, the elephant in the room is the Lisbon treaty. Discussions in the European Council and comments by MEPs, including Mr. Méndez de Vigo in The Irish Times, speak strongly about the difficulties the rejection has caused for the European Parliament. Mr. Méndez de Vigo states: “To me it is shocking that a government that held a referendum and failed is still in office. A government that puts a question to a referendum and loses has to resign: that’s democracy”.

It is a bit of a cheek for a Spanish MEP to tell our Taoiseach to resign.

Whether he is right——

There should be a question to the Leader. If the Senator wants a debate on the Lisbon treaty, he should say so.

I have a specific question. Whether the MEP is correct, it is a symptom of the change from understanding the Irish position to anger, particularly with regard to the European Parliament elections next year. The failure to pass the Lisbon treaty referendum means that the European Parliament elections will be based on the Nice treaty. This affects 12 member states and in the case of Spain four fewer MEPs will be elected. We have alienated 12 member states in Europe.

Was it a democratic decision by the Irish people or not?

The institutional arrangements for the European Parliament were never an issue in the referendum. No constitutional issue arises. It is a problem we have created and there are no objections to the European Parliament elections being held on the basis of a change in the number of MEPs, as envisaged by the Lisbon treaty.

It is incumbent on the Irish Government to contribute to a solution to this immediate problem. I accept that the rejection of the treaty will not be easily resolved but we have an immediate problem with the alienation of many people in Europe in respect of the effect on the European Parliament elections. Ireland should come up with a proposal on how this could be resolved. This could be done before the European Council meeting in December. The Seanad can play a role in this. We have an interest in good relations with the European Parliament and in fostering good relations throughout Europe. This will have a negative effect on this country and it is an immediate problem to which we can contribute a solution.

It is with interest that I hear the contributions of my colleagues after the introduction of budget 2009, with expenditure just shy of €60 billion. Some of the aspects are quite serious——

There should be a question to the Leader.

——but have been overshadowed by one issue. There is confusion, with which I will ask the Leader to assist us. The confusion is over a genuine concern about the proposal to withdraw medical cards from those who, heretofore, qualified for a medical card on an eligibility basis. It is important to send a clear message from this House. I support the views of my colleagues who stated that there is dirty, bad politics being played on this issue.

The Senator has made a request, we are now seeking questions to the Leader. I do not want to get involved in to and fro across the floor of the Chamber over politics.

I am sorry. I have raised issues with the Cathaoirleach and the Leader about the HSE. I have stated that the jury is out on certain matters. In March 2007 I raised an issue and was told that my figures were incorrect. I was told this by the HSE and many other authorities. The matter I raised on that occasion has been ruled on this week by the courts and the HSE was found wanting.

The issue relating to pharmacies is not the first one on which it has been found wanting. There is confusion regarding medical cards. It is regrettable that the HSE has not given clear explanations to those who have a long-term illness, a cancer-related illness or other medical need. Those people with medical cards who have these needs will retain their cards regardless of their income level and that message must be clearly despatched. Those on a restricted income, who feel fearful and insecure, who have escalating hospital and medical bills, must be clearly told that their cards and their medical needs will continue to be covered.

I have raised this issue with my colleagues in the parliamentary party and we will meet shortly. I have also said publicly that I believe this issue will be revisited with regard to the eligibility criteria. I ask the Leader to get a briefing document, rapidly, in order to dispel the confusion concerning these figures and to clarify what is and what is not permissible under the medical needs criteria and the applicable guidelines. It is to be hoped that this matter will be revisited and the confusion overturned to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Tomorrow is International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. It is shameful that the Government is trying to dismantle the Combat Poverty Agency.

The bank bail-out scheme details were finally published yesterday after much delay and have raised as many questions as they answered. I have a number of issues to put to the Leader. There is no indication that senior bankers will resign or will be removed, as was the case in the United Kingdom. There has been no apology from anybody in the banking sector and there is no accountability. The scheme is vague as to whether salaries will be limited for top executives and there is no cap on bankers' salaries. Will the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, come to this House to answer our questions in as much detail as is required?

The medical card controversy began because the Government has not been clear about this measure. This morning the HSE published the guidelines on its website. It is clear that €210.50 per week is the income limit for a single person and that anybody above that limit will lose the medical card. Has the Government sought to find out how many people are in that bracket? Has it consulted with GPs? We know it did not do so in 2001 when the measure was introduced as an election gimmick in order to buy the general election of that year.

We are not playing politics with this issue but are doing our job as parliamentarians, transmitting the messages from our constituencies to Government.

Like others I would welcome a debate on the issue of medical cards as laid out in the budget. We had three hours of discussion yesterday during which much of this was debated and we will not go back over that ground. I agree with Senator Boyle that there is confusion and perhaps a lack of understanding on the Opposition side——-

There is more on the Government's side.

It is causing a nervousness and a confusion——

It is not caused by the Opposition.

——among those over 70 years of age. Some of these people contacted me this morning in my own constituency. When I explained what I had said in this House yesterday they understood the matter reasonably well.

Does the Opposition support the principle that those in our society who can afford to pay for commodities, regardless of their age or gender, should pay? That is the only thing I ask.

I do not believe that a question to the Leader in respect of a reply from the Opposition is fair because he cannot reply——-

The Cathoirleach is a good man.

I will leave that matter stand. In asking for the debate, I say to the Leader that, of the savings of €100 million in the area of health, the biggest saving is €84 million which will be taken from the doctors, not from the patients. Therefore, it is the better off in our society who will be the fall guys rather than those aged over 70.

Yesterday members of the Opposition referred to the VHI and stated that the over 70 age group would now be left in the lurch, unable to get back into the VHI. That was an untruth. When I checked the matter out with the VHI, I learned that was not the case. The VHI will welcome back those members who left.

At what premium?

The VHI said that it has very few such former members and that there has been no noticeable decrease in customers in the over 70 age bracket leaving the VHI. In 2001 there were 88,989 people over 70 in the VHI and today there are more than 120,000. The VHI will take the former members back in the morning without any penalty. The only thing it will ask for is that they pay the premia that have built up in the years they were away——

(Interruptions).

——regardless of what illness they suffer. It is important that——

The point is made. There will be no Second Stage speech.

(Interruptions).

It is important to set the record straight. The Opposition is frightening elderly people——

It is very expensive to re-join the VHI if one has left it for a number of years.

It is important to put the record straight when others are frightening these people. In the society in which we live, in the country in which my party is the leading one in Parliament, nobody, regardless of their age, will ever be denied any medical help, whether they are rich or poor.

What about the people on trolleys?

That is nonsense. What about those who die of cancer because they did not get treatment or even a diagnosis?

Go raibh maith agat——

No interruptions now.

The Senator interrupted this morning.

Anybody who interrupts will also be marching.

We will be afraid to interrupt Senator Buttimer.

Is it fair that the Leader's Government is taxing the elderly? Is it fair that this Government is now placing into the tax bracket further numbers of those on low income? Will the Leader clarify that it was the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government that negotiated the medical card deal and is now to take it away? That is the reality and Senator O'Malley might take notice of it. Is it fair that Tom Parlon, who must be an embarrassment to the Progressive Democrats, has struck a great deal with the Government in the budget for the Construction Industry Federation?

Let us talk about dirty politics——

The Senator will leave out the names of Members or former Members who are not in the House to defend themselves.

I will re-phrase it. Is it fair that a certain sector of society is being looked after with sweetheart deals? I ask the Leader for a debate as a matter of urgency. This is not politics but fact. The reality is that as a consequence of this budget, people are now afraid to get sick. Elderly people who should be content at this hour of their lives are now confused, upset and worried. That is a fact. If one walks into any chemist's shop they will tell you that.

In regard to the banking scheme, it is imperative that the Minister for Finance comes to the House and answers questions. I want clarity. Under no circumstances should the people have to pay for bailing out the banks which have betrayed their trust. The scheme published yesterday, to which Senator McCarthy referred, is not clear on details such as who will pay and, more important, who will service on the boards of the banks. Will it be another cosy cartel of friends of the banks and Fianna Fáil in order that what happened before can be allowed to happen again? Is that what the Government wants? We must have the Minister in the House.

We are talking about people here. I am not playing politics. People matter and it is our job to represent them. This Government has let them down, particularly in the past 48 hours.

In recognition of what was already said in the House by the Opposition about a world financial meltdown, I ask the Leader to convene a debate. Once the scheme of the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Bill 2008 has been agreed, the House should discuss the membership of bank boards and whether banks need further capitalisation. Should that be the case, the Government should step in and take a financial stake in the banks. The State would probably secure a large stakeholding for a relatively small sum which could prove financially lucrative. A number of the Independent Senators who spoke on financial matters would make good representatives on some of the bank boards. This would provide a direct link between the House and the financial institutions and demonstrate a degree of independence.

It is difficult at a time when much attention is focused on financial matters to be reminded, as Senator Hannigan has done, of today's conference on world hunger which will be attended by Kofi Annan. Last night, I attended a function with Mr. Annan to mark the 40th anniversary of the foundation of Concern. The event provided a timely reminder that 850 million people go to bed hungry each night. Let us put things in perspective at this time of serious concern about our financial position because we have much for which to be thankful.

We must also be grateful for the conservation of our wildlife. An interesting report was published yesterday by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Northern Ireland and BirdWatch Ireland. It points out that of 199 species of birds, seven, including the corncrake, barn owl, curlew and yellow hammer, have been placed on a list of endangered species. While these types of problems do not attract attention during times of financial difficulty, Senators should ensure we discuss the matter. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on conservation in the coming weeks to divert the attention of the House from financial matters to other issues that matter to us.

On the budget, as one who is ashamed to admit to no longer travelling to the House by bicycle, I have no problem with the introduction of a €200 levy on car parking spaces which will apply to Members of the Oireachtas. However, I have a problem with an 08 registered car licensed in County Westmeath which is repeatedly parked in the yellow box in the car park, thus preventing Members from leaving the car park in the normal manner. While I am sure the vehicle is not connected to the Leader, perhaps he will find out to whom it belongs.

It belongs to a Member from the other side. The Senator should raise the matter with Senator Fitzgerald.

Before the day is out, a clear statement should be made outlining the position on medical cards for old people. There is a palpable fear among old people who are terrified by the prospect of being means tested and incurring additional expense as a result of the Government's faux pas on the medical card scheme in the budget. The Leader should convey that message to the Minister.

It is difficult in the case of those aged 75 years and over to establish where illness begins and ends and what constitutes an illness which would necessitate a medial card. There is also major confusion as regards means testing. For example, the figures cited by Senator Boyle on means testing do not correspond with figures provided by the Health Service Executive.

Senators Callely and Feeney suggested the Opposition is engaging in scare tactics or dirty politics on this issue. We are doing no more than fulfilling our role which is to seek clarification and improve and parse budget announcements and legislation. The suggestion that we are doing the contrary stems from confusion and a realisation that the proposal is a mess. The Senators are trying to get out of the mess.

Will the Leader raise with the Minister for Finance the need to make a clear statement by lunchtime clearly identifying those who will not be subject to a means test for a medical card? This information should be available in time for the evening news broadcasts. People on non-contributory old age pensions should not be means tested as it would be ludicrous to subject anyone who qualifies for an old age pension to a further means test. As Senator Leyden stated, this is a farcical proposition and a waste of public funds as the means test would cost more than the outcome.

The Leader is a compassionate, sensible businessman. I ask him to devise a solution which will provide clarity by this evening. We are all receiving telephone calls from people who are in real fear. Yesterday evening, for example, I received a call from a bachelor who cares for his mother. Senator Wilson knows the man well. He is fearful about his mother because she was anxious all day yesterday. This is an horrendous state of affairs. The issue must be clarified by this evening.

There is considerable confusion about this medical card business which has to be cleared up as it could become the equivalent of the tax on shoes which brought down a previous Government. The Government seduced old people into leaving the VHI and then left them hanging. We have to scotch the nonsense from Senators on the Government side that nothing has changed and pensioners will be able to rejoin health insurance schemes on the same terms they enjoyed previously. Insurance companies have to make profits on their clients and may offer such disadvantageous terms such that rejoining is of no use to the applicant. There is, therefore, a cost.

As to the argument that the €80 million will be paid by doctors, while general practitioners may not receive a cheque from the Government, they will, as sure as hell, extract it from their sick and elderly patients. The one constant in this business is that the pensioners will still pay.

While I have no problem with means testing, it has to be done properly and one has to hit those who can pay. It must also be a two way system in that one should means test people not only to exclude them from a system but also to ensure people are included in a scheme. This is not currently the case with the result that we are not protecting the weak.

The former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, used to say he was a socialist. I know the socialist credo — from each according to his means and to each according to his need.

The Senator should address questions to the Leader.

We are taking from people and failing to give to those who are needy. The same applies in the case of university fees. It is a nonsense to suggest we have free fees. It was another vote getting exercise. While the question of whether fees should be reintroduced should be examined, we are taxing people by doubling the capitation fee to €1,500 for all students. This approach targets everyone. If one were to introduce fees with a proper ceiling, one would target the people who are in need. This is exactly the same as in the case of means testing.

I was amazed to hear Senator Regan, a distinguished lawyer, suggest that we flout a treaty. He also said our democratic vote had alienated large numbers of people in the rest of Europe. On the contrary, it alienated a large number of senior politicians, whereas the people of Europe were pleased with what we did and they were right to be so.

The Senator has made his point.

Senators Fitzgerald, O'Toole, Alex White, Coghlan, Hannigan, Boyle, Leyden, Bacik, O'Malley, Regan, Callely, McCarthy, Feeney, Buttimer, Hanafin, O'Reilly and Norris expressed strong views on the budget. We had a good debate yesterday evening during which Senators expressed their opinions on the budget.

Considerable uncertainty has arisen regarding old age pensioners on medical cards. The medical card gave senior citizens peace of mind and certainty, which I would like restored. Commentary in the political system and media is stifling the reality of what is taking place. I want there to be a means test for those who can afford to pay, but any person over the age of 70 in receipt of only a contributory pension or social welfare benefits is entitled to a medical card. That is my understanding of the measure from what I heard just before the Order of Business. That should allay the fears of in excess of 70% of those currently entitled to a medical card. Senator O'Reilly was correct when he said that this message need to be got across loud and clear. The responsible media might let the public know that this, as far as I understand, is the case.

Senator Callely, a former Minister of State, gave the House the benefit of his experience and advised that any person who is terminally ill be given a medical card. It will be a comfort to such unfortunate people to know that. Clarification of this measure is needed and we will do all we can to obtain that.

I will accede to the request to invite the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, back to the House to discuss this matter at the earliest possible time, perhaps next week. She has been most helpful and is probably the one Minister who is fully in support of coming to the House every time I ask her to do so following requests made by Members on the Order of Business. I will request today that the Minister come to the House to clarify Members' various concerns to ensure the public knows the up-to-date definitive position on the medical card measure.

Regarding tomorrow's Seanad business, I always discuss the business ordered with the party leaders out of courtesy and I have always made substantial progress with their assistance. I will do everything I possibly can in regard to tomorrow's business, but I cannot order it, as the matter will be taken in the Dáil at the same time. As matters stand, the business for tomorrow is ordered as I outlined this morning.

Senator Hannigan raised a matter concerning the allocation of €20 million in foreign aid to Vietnam. I will pass on his strong views to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Senator Bacik raised the issue of funding for the arts. I fully support the allocation of whatever funding is available for the arts. Senator Keaveney, in previous comments on the Order of Business, has also spoken of her full support for such funding.

Senators Regan and Norris raised the issue of the Lisbon treaty. The Government has set up a special sub-committee of the Joint Committee on European Affairs that comes under the remit of Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin. The committee has 12 members, five of whom are Members from this House, some of whom were on the "Yes" side and some of whom were on the "No" side. The Government or Fianna Fáil side of this House proposed an Independent Member who was on the "No" side to express our views and to try to reach a consensus on this matter. The sub-committee is sitting three days each week for four weeks. Its deliberations are being treated with the utmost urgency by the Minister and the Government. I congratulate those who allowed their names to go forward to participate on the committee. It is a considerable commitment of their time. I will afford whatever time is required of me by the members of the sub-committee on the conclusions of their deliberations to ensure Members of this House will have an opportunity to discuss fully the sub-committee's proposals in regard to the Lisbon treaty and the decision of the people of Ireland to vote "No" to it.

I join Senator Quinn in extending our best wishes to Kofi Annan in regard to all he is doing. The Senator reminded us of the alarming statistic that 850 million people go to bed hungry every night. That puts things in perceptive. I thank the Senator for bringing this information to the attention of the House.

I agree with the Senator's request for a debate in regard to statistics on wildlife species announced yesterday. I heard a member of the royal society in the UK and a member of our equivalent society talk on the radio this morning about the importance of wildlife, in particular the species highlighted by the Senator with which we would have all been familiar during our childhood, especially those of us who lived in rural Ireland. Our wildlife is a huge asset to our heritage and I want to see it protected. We will allow time to have this matter discussed in the House at the earliest possible time.

Senator Fitzgerald moved an amendment to the Order of Business, "That a statement by the Minister for Finance on the proposal in the budget for the implementation of means test for the medical cards for persons over 70 be taken today." Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 25.

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Norris, David.
  • O’Reilly, Joe.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Prendergast, Phil.
  • Quinn, Feargal.
  • Regan, Eugene.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Ryan, Brendan.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Butler, Larry.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Cannon, Ciaran.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Corrigan, Maria.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • McDonald, Lisa.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • O’Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Joe O’Toole; Níl, Senators Fiona O’Malley and Diarmuid Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.
Top
Share